Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled from Marilyn Monroe

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled from Marilyn Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article reads like an advertisement or a puff piece, not an encyclopedia.

Many of the claims in the article are not supported by the source they are cited to.

The article goes off on tangents to talk about things that really belong on different Wikipedia pages.

As there are Wikipedia pages about The Marilyn Diptych and Gold Marilyn Monroe, the need for this article to exist at all is questionable. The Erethizontidae (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. The Erethizontidae

(talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is way better than Gold Marilyn Monroe (if you're going to mention another article, LINK IT), but we don't really need both - they should be merged into ''Marilyn Monroe'' series or something. The nom doesn't contest notability, which is wise, as they are effortlessly notable. Nothing in the nom is a valid reason for deletion. Some trimming could be done, and the student prose touched up. NOTE: Proposing deletion here was the nominator's 10th edit. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • • PS: Marilyn Diptych is a different work, not part of the series. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic article with advertising tone, fails to meet GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? What is "unencyclopedic" about an article about a work by a leading artist? The 23 different refs are variable in quality, but several are of high quality. Did you look at them? Though, as I said, this would be better covering the whole series. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article fails to describe or identify the particular print in the portfolio that this article is specifically discussing. There are 10 different versions of Untitled from Marilyn Monroe 1967 at MoMA and one at the Met The lede states "Untitled from Marilyn Monroe (1967) is one of a portfolio of ten 36×36 silkscreened prints". The article should either be about the portfolio or state which print this article is about. These are iconic images, but this article does not approach it in a way that makes sense. WP:TNT WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying merge/rename, not delete, then. Why not say so? Most of the article is about the series anyway. Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if there are wording concerns about the page content then those are easily fixed (if someone hasn't already done so). The topic itself is 100% notable as a stand-alone page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify my vote, the article fails to identify which image it is about. There is no indictaion of which collection it is in nor has there been a fair use image added to clarify which image is being written about. An analogous situation could be if an article was written titled "Image of earth taken from Apollo 8" with no image or description, and then went on to discuss the entire series of photographs taken from that mission as well as photography in space in general. I do not think renaming the article to refer to the series will fix the problems of the article. Yes, Warhol's images and assemblies of Marilyn are notable, as are the photographs take from Apollo 8, but the approach here is wrong for an encyclopedic entry. The subject needs to be addressed anew. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Phooey! As you say, the 19,000 bytes in the article say very little about the individual print (it is a print, btw, in many collections) as it is mostly about the series/portfolio & the conversion of the article to one about the series would only take a minute of so. Yet you are opposed to this. Why? Johnbod (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources in the article discussing this and other Marilyn portraits by Warhol. I would support a merge per Johnbod. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for a very notable topic, Warhol's series. At first I thought this was a vandal delete request or something and that it would be snow closed when I clicked on this discussion. Kind of amazed that it has received delete !votes. The page covers a notable topic, is well sourced, is entirely credible for Wikipedia's Monroe collection and Warhol collection, and there is nothing broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.